SU‐E‐T‐482: A More Accurate Bare <sup>12</sup>5I Spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare measured energy spectra of 125I brachytherapy seeds with Monte Carlo calculated energy spectra when using the bare 125I energy spectrum recommended by TG43 and the one presented in NCRP Report 58 and to determine the impact of these different spectra on the calculation of the dose rate constant. Methods: The energy spectrum, absorbed dose at 1 cm on the bisector and air kerma strength of 10 different 125I seeds were calculated using the EGSnrc BrachyDose Monte Carlo code. Energy bin width was 0.2 keV. The simulations were done with the bare 125I energy spectrum recommended by TG43 or NCRP Report 58. Statistical uncertainties for the energy spectra were 0.02% and 0.1% or less for the other clinical parameters. Results are compared with published measuredvalues. Results: There is close agreement between the measured and calculated branching ratio generated by 125I seeds when simulated using the spectrum presented in NCRP58. However, for all seeds a 7% lower value is observed in the 31 keV peak when using data suggested by TG43. On the other hand, differences in the average energy, air kerma, absorbed dose and dose rate constant are undetectable (less than statistical uncertainty, <0.1%) when performed with either spectrum. Conclusions: For dosimetric parameter calculations, the bare 125I energy spectra presented in TG43 and NCRP58 produce indistinguishable results. However, for branching ratio investigation purposes, there is a clear difference in the 31 keV peak between values obtained using the different 125I bare energy spectra. Measured 125I branching ratios are in close agreement with those calculated using the bare 125I energy spectrum presented in NCRP58. Reassessment of the bare 125I energy spectrum recommended in TG43 is suggested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".